The reality of the situation [was: Energy shortage]

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 18:22:33 MDT

  • Next message: Dossy: "Re: g**gle is also a calculator"

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Adrian Tymes wrote:

    Mitch (I think),
    > We cannot fly to Mars on dreams alone.

    There is *more* than enough energy stored in plutonium
    "archived" in various locations to send us to Mars
    several times over.

    At the same time one must consider that we may not get to
    fly to Mars (ever).

    > Economic viability does not depend purely on the
    > technology available, but also on the infrastructure.

    This is important to keep in mind -- both from a production
    standpoint and a cleanup standpoint. One wants a total
    cost solution.

    Just so you know the numbers (read em and weep (perhaps)).

    In terms of Enriched Uranium, the U.S. has 645 *tons*
    while Russia has 1,050 tons. In terms of plutonium
    (which can create smaller bombs), the U.S. has 100 tons
    while Russia has 160 tons. According to my calculations
    that translates into a potential for 194,000+ nuclear weapons.

    Please note that I am talking *tons*, while when one talks
    nuclear weapons sizes one talks the vicinity of dozens (or less)
    of "pounds" or "kg".

    The material is not allocated in a "maximal number of weapons"
    pattern. (e.g. minimal weapon yield per quantity of weapons class
    material -- so the probable number of weapons is lower due to
    the desire to produce weapons of greater destructive power).
    Also, much of the material is probably in storage as weapons are
    dismantled. But make no mistake -- we (the U.S. and the Russians)
    have significant capability to set humanity back for dozens to
    hundreds of years should "something" happen -- perhaps long
    enough to allow an asteroid or a gamma ray burst to wipe out
    humanity entirely.

    Robert



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 18:31:40 MDT